Te Kāhui Kura Māori, Volume 0, Issue 1

Tikanga Māori Pre-1840

Tikanga Māori Pre-1840

Had any body of law or custom capable of being
understood and administered by the Courts of a
civilised country been known to exist, the British
Government would surely have provided for its
recognition.

Pre-1840 Māori customs, rules, values and ideologies
(tikanga1) did not fit neatly into
Western notions of law. Tikanga was not codified into
express laws or enforced by an external authority such
as a Legislature or Judiciary. As a result, it was
viewed by incoming British settlers as lacking in
fairness, morality, certainty and
reasonableness. Tikanga had
none of these characteristics. Tikanga was constructed over
centuries of practice and was underpinned by core values
and principles which governed Māori political, legal,
social and spiritual behaviour. It was flexible,
adaptable and could be interconnected to fit with the
demands of the moment or as new circumstances arose.

The first part of this paper describes the nature and
scope of pre-1840 tikanga
by setting out the core principles, goals and values
which underpinned tikanga
and its fluid, flexible and interconnected nature. It
also provides some insight into how these core
principles governed pre-1840 Māori communities’ social,
legal, spiritual and political behaviour.

The second part of this paper highlights the ability
of tikanga to govern the
collective behaviour of pre-1840 Māori communities. It
provides specific examples of tikanga governing pre-1840 Māori
communities’ behaviour in relation to social norms, war
and land. In conclusion, this part also describes how
tikanga was enforced.

Part One: The Nature and Scope of Pre-1840
Tikanga

The concept of ‘tikanga’

This paper deliberately refrains from describing
Māori customs, rules, values and ideologies as ‘Māori
customary law’. The term ‘Māori customary law’ is a
scholarly and legalistic term, which was first used by
early settlers to describe Māori customary practices
and rules (Boast et al 2002:24). The notion of law
does not fit well with pre-1840 Māori customs, rules,
values and ideologies. Law is fundamentally expressed
in written form and is designed to be certain and
rigid. It is often linked to the state and enforced by
an external authority. These characteristics of law
were not present in pre-1840 Māori day-to-day
life. This paper uses the term ‘tikanga’ to describe pre-1840
Māori customs, rules, values and ideologies.

Tikanga has been
defined in many ways. Judge Eddie T. Durie defines it as the
‘values, standards, principles or norms to which the
Māori community generally subscribed for the
determination of appropriate conduct’ (Durie
1996:449). Dame Joan Metge
describes tikanga simply
as ‘the right Māori ways’ (Metge 1995:21). Chief Judge
Jo Williams describes
tikanga as ‘the Māori way
of doing things – from the very mundane to the most
sacred or important fields of human endeavour’
(Williams 1998:2). No one definition is completely
correct or wrong.

The word tikanga originates from
the two words ‘tika’ and ‘nga’. ‘Tika’ can be defined
as right, correct, just or fair. ‘Nga’ is the plural
for the English word ‘the’. Therefore, in this context
tikanga may be defined as
‘way(s) of doing and thinking held by Māori to be just
and correct’ (NZ Law Commission 2003:16).

This paper suggests that there are three levels of
tikanga. The essential
principle underpinning tikanga at the highest level is
the notion of what is right and moral, and what is
wrong. Below the principle of what is right and wrong
are the core values which underpin this notion. The
final level of tikanga
was the practice and application of these core
values.

The Fundamental Principles Underpinning Tikanga

As suggested above, at the highest level, the
essential principle underpinning tikanga was the notion of what
is right and moral, and what is wrong. In this way
tikanga displayed
general guidelines for acceptable behaviour and
compensated for unacceptable behaviour. The notion
of right and wrong is evident in all pre-1840 Māori
communities’ behaviour.

Under the highest level of tikanga there are a number of
core values that underpin the totality of tikanga Māori. They include:
whanaungatanga;
mana; tapu; manaakitanga; and utu. This is not an exhaustive
or definitive list.2 Each iwi would have its own
variations of each of the core values, and therefore
the above list must be seen as a general list which
can be subjected to reconfiguration. It also must be
noted that none of these core values stand alone;
rather they are closely interwoven, much like a
koru (Durie
1994:4-5). To understand tikanga, one must understand the
core values because it is these core values which
provide the primary guide to behaviour.

Before defining the core values underpinning
tikanga, it must be
noted that a perfect picture will never be painted
when trying to give Māori concepts an English
definition.

(a) Whanaungatanga

Whanaungatanga captures the all-embracing
relationships of pre-1840 Māori society. Pre-1840
Māori relationships were between people; between
people and the physical world; and between people
and Atua (spiritual
entities) (NZ Law Commission 2003:30). Most
relationships were based on whakapapa (genealogy). Whakapapa
was also the basis for social constructions, that
being whānau, hapū and iwi.

Whakapapa was an effective social tool. In
pre-1840 Māori society an individual was never seen
purely as an individual; rather the individual’s
identity was defined through that individual’s
relationship with others. Put another way,
individuals were expected to support the collective
group, and the collective group was expected to
support the individual, (Mead 2003:20) (whakapapa
being the basis for the relationship). Whakapapa
could also be used to define mana in the collective
group. For example, significant people within the
collective group would often make reference to
senior lines of whakapapa to earlier celebrated
leaders of the community or/and Atua. In this way it
created an inherent hierarchical system, and defined
the nature of relationships between members of the
collective group.

Whakapapa was also a very effective political
tool. Well developed whakapapa could give an
individual an entry to numerous communities, and
allowed the communities to claim the adherence of
widely scattered persons (NZ Law Commission
2003:30). In this way allegiances were created in
times of war and peace, and assisted in maintaining
positive relationships.3

Finally, whakapapa was also used to maintain
relationships with the land. For example, mountains,
rivers or lakes were often named after significant
tupuna of the
collective group to inform and affirm whanaungatanga
between people and the land (NZ Law Commission
2003:31). A whakapapa link to the land formed the
basis for rights to use the land.

(b) Mana

Mana is defined in the William’s Dictionary of
the Māori Language as authority, control, influence,
prestige, and power on one hand, and psychic force
on the other (Williams 1979:172). There are three
aspects of mana: mana
atua – God given power; mana tupuna – power handed down
from by one’s ancestors; and mana
tangata – authority derived from personal
attributes (Boast et al 1999). The triadic nature of
mana is important because it explains the dynamics
of Māori status and leadership and the lines of
accountability between leaders and their people.

Mana tupuna was
acquired from birth as mana handed down by one’s
ancestors. The mātaamua
(the eldest child of the sibling set, or in some iwi
the first born male child) acquired the greatest
share of mana tupuna. The shares would then decrease
in order of birth. In the traditional sense it meant
that those with senior whakapapa lines had a head
start in the expectation of leadership positions (NZ
Law Commission 2003:33). However, mana tupuna alone was not
sufficient enough to claim a role in tribal
leadership.

Mana tangata
(achieved through feats of bravery, skill or
knowledge) was also important if one wanted to be a
leader. If one had mana
tupuna but not mana
tangata, then he or she could be expected
to be bypassed for someone who had both. In this
situation whakapapa could be tailored to show a link
to the senior lines of descent (Boast et al
1992:38). Mana tangata
allowed for class mobility, and was often judged not
from the perspective of personal achievement, rather
the ability to benefit the collective (Durie
1994:6).

It is important to mention at this stage that
rangatira were still
required to affirm the consensus of the people in
public forums (NZ Law Commission 2003:34). This
notion can be best described by the whakatauki (proverb) –

Ko te kai a te rangatira, he kōrero.

The art of rhetoric is the food of chiefs.

The final segment of mana is mana
atua. Mana atua emphasises the tapu nature of the leadership
role and the respect which the community owes its
chosen leaders (Williams 1998:12). It governed
individual and community behaviour and conduct, in
that a rangatira who
wore the mantle of mana
atua and mana
tupuna in abundance would be treated with
awe and respect (NZ Law Commission 2003:35).

(c) Tapu and Noa

Tapu and noa are complementary opposites,
which together constitute a whole. There are many
meanings and conditions associated with tapu and it had many
purposes. On the one hand it can be linked to a code
for social conduct based essentially on keeping safe
and avoiding risk. On the other hand, it has
political purposes in terms of protecting the
sanctity of certain persons, such as Rangatira, Ariki and Tohunga, thus ensuring
appropriate levels of respect for hapū leadership
(Boast et al 1994:26). Tapu came from the gods and
therefore, if an individual broke tapu then they would expect to
suffer spiritual interference, thus providing an
incentive to obey the tapu.

Situations, people and objects could fluctuate
between a state of tapu
and noa. For example, a
menstruating woman would be considered to be
tapu, however once her
cycle was completed she would be noa. Tapu was also a tool to
reinforce personal mana
and could be manipulated or accommodated to fit
certain situations or relationships (Durie
1994:7). For example, if a rangatira could point a direct
line to Atua, then he may have been considered tapu
and could be treated with awe and respect. Tapu could also be used as a
form of social control, for example, a tohunga could deem a particular
place/resource to be tapu by placing a rahui (sanction). It was
expected that the community would act consistently
with the rahui.

Noa on other hand
has been defined as safety and was a counter or
antidote to tapu. Noa denotes a state of relaxed
access, requiring no particular protective mechanism
or restrictions – the value of everyday, ordinary
relaxed human activity.

(d) Manaakitanga

Durie defines Manaakitanga as ‘generosity,
caring for others and compassion’ (Durie
1994:6). Manaakitanga
is a form of social control in that the individual
was meant to conduct himself/herself with
manaakitanga and would expect to receive it back. It
reflects an expected standard of behaviour, an ideal
that one should aspire to.

Manaakitanga was
closely related and intertwined with every core
value of pre-1840 Māori society. For example,
whanaungatanga was used to establish relationships,
but manaakitanga maintained those relationships. The
amount of manaakitanga given could depend on the
basis of the relationship. For example, a great deal
of manaakitanga would be given to those who were
tapu or had mana. In Pre-1840 Māori society
manaakitanga was always important no matter what the
circumstances might be. It was used in times of war
and peace and if broken or disrespected could be the
cause for utu.

(e) Utu

Utu is linked to the
framework of take-utu-ea. That is, there
would be an action (take), which requires an
appropriate resolution (utu), which would hopefully
resolve the matter and there would be a state of
ea (restoring balance
and thereby maintaining whanaungatanga) (Mead
2003:28).

Utu is often
understood to mean revenge for wrong doing – this is
partly correct. There were positive and negative
facets of utu. For
example, utu would be
used in the return of goods (taonga and services) for ‘good’
gifts, and the return of ‘bad’ goods (insults,
injuries, wrongs) for bad gifts (NZ Law Commission
2003:38). In this way utu helped to govern pre-1840
Māori communities’ social behaviour.

A fundamental element of utu was manaakitanga. Many famous
stories exist that illustrate the exercise of
manaakitanga by chiefs
of great mana (Tau 2008):

the giving of the chief’s son or daughter to
a vanquished enemy in order to make them strong
again and restore their mana;

the transfer of extensive areas of land to a
beaten enemy in order to ensure the survival of
that tribe;

engaging in massive displays of generosity
through hākari
(traditional feasting) and hui (traditional gathering) in
order to create obligations of reciprocity and
confirm relationships.

In each of these examples, it is important to
recognise that the gift was not unconditional, and
in time an appropriate return would be expected: for
example, off-spring, produce from the land and
support in times of war. These examples highlight
the nature of utu as a method to establish or
reinforce on-going relationships.

The desire for utu
could last for generations. Take were often raised as a
reason to go to war, or gain support to go to war
(Mead 2003:36).

The Nature of Tikanga

Tikanga extended to
all parts of pre-1840 Māori society including
political, social, moral, spiritual and economic
matters. It embodies not only the method of conducting
actions in Māori society but also the beliefs and
underlying values, which accompanied the particular
actions. Put another way tikanga comprises a spectrum with
values at one end and rules at the other, but with
values informing the whole range. The fundamental
values underpinning tikanga have been discussed
above.

Tikanga has its
origins in the spiritual realms of the Atua (the gods)
and was handed down from tupuna (ancestors) to the
present (Mead 2003:12). This was important because it
linked the livings’ values which underpinned their
normal behaviour to the often heroic, moral, wise and
noble Atua. Pre-1840 Māori had no form of written
language. Rather these important values of the Atua
were passed by one generation to the other, either by
Whakatauki (proverbs),
waiata, purakau, whaikorero, or through active
participation in a particular act, which gave rise to
the understanding of the value(s) associated with that
act.

Tikanga was pragmatic,
open-ended and lacked rule-like definitions. This
allowed tikanga to be
flexible and adaptable to fit new circumstances or the
needs of the community at a particular time or
situation. Tikanga was
able to adapt because it was unwritten and because
precedent could be forgotten or disregarded if no
longer convenient (Durie 1994:10). It is the ability
of tikanga to change that
accounts for its variations among iwi. Flexibility
however, could not be so great as to allow a
proposition to be advanced as tikanga where it is in conflict
with core values handed down from the ancestors. This
allowed for common tikanga not only within internal
hapū but also at a regional level (NZ Law Commission
2003:28).

Tikanga also varied in
scale. Some tikanga were
large, involved many participants and were very
public. For example, tangihanga or hakari could
involve hundreds to thousands of people. Other
tikanga however could be
very small in scale and might be less public, for
example individual karakia (prayers).

Māori social and political organisation

Before explaining the extent to which tikanga governed the collective
behaviour of pre-1840 Māori communities, it is
important to note the social constructions of pre-1840
Māori society. There were three group formations,
whānau, hapū and iwi.

Whānau was used to describe immediate relatives,
those descended from an ancestor some 3 to 4
generations back (Durie 1994:16). Whānau often lived
and worked together, and through residence and
expansion could form a hapū in their own right.

The major political and social group in pre-1840
Māori society was the hapū. Each hapū was named either
from a common ancestor or, (less frequently) from a
symbolic event (Durie 1994:17). Hapū came in many
shapes and sizes, ranging from large, long established
groups with small sub-hapū of its own, to small
recently formed hapū of relatively shallow
genealogical depth (Durie 1994:17). Hapū could waxed
and fused depending on particular situations. For
example, hapū could splinter from another hapū because
of: growth in numbers; planned migration; lack of
resources; or inter-kin disputes etc. On the other
hand, hapū could fuse for many reasons, such as: war;
regain strength if numbers were depleted from war or
famine; consequence of an arranged marriage; or a
willingness to link with an influential leader.

The process of division, incorporation, fusion and
intermarriage allowed hapū to relate to numerous
others near and far, and to join with others for any
common venture. As Durie states, pre-1840 Māori
society existed within the dual tension of upholding
hapū mana and maintaining the wider whanaungatanga
(Durie 1994:20).

Hapū lived under the influence of a ruling or
principal rangatira and several less influential
rangatira. The mana of a principal rangatira could lie
over his territory (ancestral lands), and in some
instances over other hapū living within his
territory. Although a principal rangatira had the
rights to gift mana to individuals/groups, he was
ultimately controlled by the people whom he
governed. Hapū would acknowledge his mana and comply
with his rule, but only while he provided protection
and secured wealth for the community. Individuals,
whānau, and hapū (and the rangatira who led them),
were free to leave their hapū if they were
dissatisfied with the principal rangatira’s
leadership. Therefore, hapū could increase or decrease
depending on the principal rangatira’s influence.

Iwi is the conglomerate of numerous hapū who can
trace ancestry to a common but remote figure. It was
used as a general description for people of locality,
district or region. It was only in the 19th century
that hapū started to group into iwi, as a response to
increased scales of war. Pre-18th century warfare were
often between hapū or a number of hapū. However this
changed, and the scale of war increased to a regional
scale; hence hapū strengthening their forces under the
umbrella of iwi.

This part of the paper draws heavily on the work of
Eddie
Durie’s paper Customary Law, to provide
specific examples of tikanga governing pre-1840 Māori
communities’ behaviour, in regards to war, land and
social norms. It also provides a brief discussion on
the enforcement of tikanga.

Tikanga
as a form of social control

Social control was regulated by the fundamental
principles of tikanga
defined above. There was no notion of an individual in
pre-1840 Māori communities. Therefore, an injury
caused by one individual to another, would not only
affect the mana of the victim but also the mana of the
victim’s whānau/community. The whānau/community, as
well as the individual would be subject to the
muru (plunder to appease
offences) or utu to appease a breach of tapu and/or
taking of mana (Durie 1994:52). In this way, joint
responsibilities made whānau/communities watchful of
their disobedient members and offenders’ conscious of
their whānau/communities (Durie 1994:53). In this way,
reciprocity had an influential effect on governing
pre-1840 Māori social behaviour.

Whakapapa also limited conflict. Because
communities were often based on whakapapa, one section
of the community could have found it difficult to
dominate another, as a person’s friend in one context
could be an enemy in another, or some friends could be
on both sides. Whakapapa could provide individual tapu
and mana, and therefore could effect how individuals
and the community related to a particular individual,
for example, a rangatira or tohunga.

Pre-1840 Māori communities’ behaviour was also
highly influenced by tapu. As mentioned above both
people and objects could be tapu, and it was used to
governed communities’ behaviour and adherence to
people, such as rangatira and tohunga, and to
situations, for example waahi
tapu. A breach of tapu was feared not only
because it could reduce the mana of a rangatira or
tohunga who was tapu or had placed the tapu, and
therefore would be subject to muru or utu, but also
because a breach of tapu was considered to expose the
person to spiritual interference and misfortune (Durie
1994:54).

In regards to pre-1840 Māori decision making,
consensus decision-making was preferred to majority
rule. Debate was encouraged in formal situations (such
as rūnanga or marae), and proper protocols
(kawa) was followed
(Durie 1994:56). If one was to break kawa, then he or
she would be scolded with verbal attacks and would
lose mana as a result. Runanga meetings were open and
non-exclusive and decisions were based on appeasement
to the community, which allowed the rangatira to
maintain support (and therefore mana) from the
community.

Pre-1840 Māori communities traced descent from
original occupiers and subsequent migrants (be it
mythological ancestors or once living people) (Durie
1994:14). It was this link that connected the present
people to the land they resided in, and thus provided
them with mana over the land - the longer the line
connected to the land, the greater the right (Durie
1994:15). This was important because pre-1840 Māori
communities saw all things as derived from the
ancestors, and to establish a link of this kind gave
descendants a legitimate right to use and occupy the
land. Individuals who did not have a whakapapa link
could still be members of the community.

However, they would not be seen as fully fledged
members. Therefore individuals would seek to marry
someone from the group to ensure their off-spring has
ancestral rights to the land. Because one had
ancestral links to the land would not mean that he or
she had full rights of membership. People were
expected to reside in the group locality, comply with
group norms, and when required participate in group
activities (this principle is known as ahikaa) (Boast et al
1999:35). Thus, if an individual was absent for too
long, then that person’s (or that person’s
descendants) rights of membership could be lost.

Tikanga relating to
Land

The spiritual, cultural and social life of the
community was linked to the land (Durie 1994:61). As
mentioned above, in the whanaungatanga section,
pre-1840 Māori communities’ right to land was
validated by whakapapa. Whakapapa linked the land’s
occupiers to the earliest occupying groups, and to the
Atua that formed it. The longer the shown link the
stronger the right to the land. This was important
because pre-1840 Māori communities saw all things
derived from the ancestors, and to establish a link of
this kind gave descendants a legitimate right to use
and occupy the land.

Even when groups were forced to accompany other
groups within their land, either through war,
immigration or famine, the suppressed group’s
whakapapa link to the land was still recognised, and
visitor land rights could only be secured by
inter-marriage, thus giving their off-spring an
ancestral link to the land. In other cases visitors
would use whakapapa to identify a distant common
ancestor to provide a link to the soil. A link to the
land by ancestral connection was referred to as mana
whenua, a link by suppression of the original
inhabitants was called mana tangata. It was highly
desirable to have both. Ancestral links to land was
remembered and portrayed by waiata, 'myths',
whaikorero, waahi tapu and the naming of parts of the
land after ancestors.

Pre-1840 Māori society had no concept of ownership
in land, rather individuals and groups had rights in
the land (Boast et al 1999:36). Interests pertained to
resources, for example an interest to cultivate crops
in a particular place, or to hunt a particular
resource, however it would not be an exclusive
right. Many people could have different and
overlapping interests in any discrete area depending
on their ancestral link to the land, and their mana
within the community. For example, specific resources
such as stranded whales, were for the rangatira alone
(Durie 1994:69).

Political rights of interest in the land (that is
the ability to give, remove, or recover interests in
the land) were vested in hapū, as represented in
rangatira, and extended to the collective resources of
the territory over which the hapū had influence (Durie
1994:72). The political right of control was expressed
in terms of mana. Put another way, only rangatira
could give rights in the land, as they had the
requisite mana to do so. Land interests were also
linked to principles of utu. Continued interests in
the land would depend on regular contribution to the
community and acceptance of the community rules. On
the other hand, interests could be given to other hapū
to forge strong relationships, for example in times of
war. Interests in other lands could express themselves
on an individual level (through whakapapa) or at a
hapū level (through whakapapa or utu) and it was not
uncommon for a rangatira to have land interests in
numerous hapū.

Tikanga relating to
Warfare

Unlike other countries, the use of warfare to
acquire territory was considered improper in
traditional Māori society4. Instead, warfare
would be arranged from a desire to regain mana, and
exact utu. It was a pragmatic event and varied in
scale and velocity. It could involve individuals,
families or hapū, and the declaration of war did not
always mean that there would be bloodshed. For
example, muru (plundering), gifts or interests in land
could be given/received to regain mana and exact
utu. The purpose was to protect whakapapa ties, ensure
mana was intact and maintain enduring
relationships. Because of this, the whole event could
be more symbolic, as oppose to violent.

When violent warfare was conducted it was often the
result of a serious breach of tapu, which had the
result of injuring the mana of a rangatira and/or the
hapū. For example, Durie notes a breach of rahui or
a desecration of a waahi tapu could give rise to war
(Durie 1994:43). Durie also notes that war was not
spontaneous, and rangatira would often seek the advice
of the community to ensure that it was ‘tika’ or morally justifiable to go
to war. An unjust war could lead to a loss in mana
within the community and allies. Tikanga could also limit violence
to the first slain or personal and/or limited combat
(Durie 1994:54). There could also be informal
constraints on killing, such as that on a person of
high mana to limit hostilities and utu from other kin
groups.

Even if a hapū was conquered, in most cases they
would still be allowed to reside on its land, as
acknowledgement of their mana
whenua over that land. In most cases the
victorious hapū would inter-marry with the defeated
hapū, their offspring being able to show mana whenua
over the land, and helping to build relationships
between each hapū.

Authority to administer tikanga

The final part of this essay explains the enforcers
of tikanga. As mentioned
previously, tikanga was
not administered by an external authority, such as a
police force. Rather tikanga was administered in a
number of different ways and mediums.

Community accountability was the most effective
mechanism for enforcing tikanga. Primary membership of the
community was based on whakapapa, and it was this
shared whakapapa which ensured that the individual
acted in accordance, and in the best interests of the
collective at that time. Individuals were expected to
uphold tikanga and to
contribute to the health of the community. If they did
not, then the individual, and potentially their
family, could expect to face retribution from the
community.

Individuals could also administer tikanga, depending on their mana
within the community. For example, a tohunga (expert
in a particular field) played a significant role in
the enforcement of tikanga through the establishment
of a rahui (sanctions) and exacting punishment on
those who breached the restrictions of rahui in the
form of makutu
(curse). Kaumatua
(elders) were responsible for ensuring their whānau
would uphold tikanga. Rangatira were
responsible for displaying leadership within the
realms of community tikanga. It is important to note
however, that these individuals administering tikanga would only do so with the
support (perceived or confirmed) of the community.

The atua were also enforcers of tikanga. Pre-1840 Māori tried to
conduct themselves with the same values and beliefs of
their mythologised ancestors, in this way they were a
model for proper behaviour. Atua could also enforced
tikanga on the basis of
pre-1840 Māori belief’s that if they breached tapu,
then they would be subjected to spiritual
interference.

Conclusion

Pre-1840 tikanga was
fluid, flexible and lacked rule-like definitions. It
covered all areas of pre-1840 Māori society, including
political, social, moral, spiritual and economic matters
and was underpinned by fundamental values, which were
passed on from generation to generation.

However post-1840, tikanga was eclipsed by introduced
British laws and settler policies. As the quote above
suggests, the judiciary simply denied that tikanga existed, the legislative
suppressed aspects of tikanga, and together they altered
the social structures of Māori in which tikanga existed, the overall effect
being the social, economic, spiritual and political
degradation of Māori society. To this day Māori society
has still not recovered from this suppression of
tikanga.